Hbos Group Reorganisation Bill Considered; to be read the Third time.

Jack Straw: Any action that was taken by the international community would have to be authorised by the Security Council, and I speak for the United Kingdom. The IAEA operates under the Security Council's general supervision, and it is under its statutes that we have reported Iran to the Security Council.
	I am afraid that I failed to answer the last of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) in relation to India. India was not a member of non-proliferation treaty regime. It acquired nuclear weapons. We in the United Kingdom were co-sponsors of a resolution calling on India and Pakistan to desist. It is a reality that the United States and we have sought to ensure that there are agreements with India by which it comes at last partially—I hope, in time, fully—into the non-proliferation regime; but, interestingly, Iran has never raised the issue of India, because of course Iran continues to deny that it has any nuclear weapons ambitions whatsoever.

Jack Straw: I do not have all the details of the International Monetary Fund arrangement, but it worth bearing in mind that two peace processes have taken place in Sudan. The north-south peace process led to a Government of national unity, so progress has been made and the situation is far better than it was a few years ago, and I believe that the IMF arrangements were made in respect of that process. The IMF always imposes conditions, which are principally economic, but I shall follow up my hon. Friend's suggestion and write to him.

Crispin Blunt: A rather notable absentee from those who were giving active support is the United States of the America. One has to ask precisely what point there is in a huge amount of official and ministerial effort going towards trying to get this treaty if there is no prospect of the United States being a party to it. Even if it does so, if it treats it in the manner in which it treated the extradition treaty with this country, what point is there?

Gregory Campbell: What assistance is the Government offering to the opposition parties in Zimbabwe that are taking such a courageous and noble stand against the excesses of the Mugabe regime?

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman asked about the time that we would give the Hamas Administration. No time scale has been laid down so far. Indeed, for the time being there is no Hamas Administration. We wait to see the nature of that Administration. However, the Quartet's statement is very clear. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I have sought to ensure that while clear expectations are laid at the door of the new Hamas majority in the Palestinian legislative assembly, ordinary Palestinians are not punished or impoverished for the results of their perfectly free decisions in the election.
	As for the withdrawal decision that I announced earlier today, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the understanding that he showed. He asked whether sufficient consideration had been given to whether there was any alternative. The answer is yes. The matter had been under active consideration by me for getting on for a year. When I was first asked to agree to the withdrawal I decided not to do so, because at that stage, after further questioning of the security assessments, I judged—although it was a risk, for which I took responsibility—that it was just acceptable for the monitors to stay.
	There comes a moment, however, when it is impossible to be irresponsible about such risks. My judgment then became, last week, that the risk to the people for whom we were directly responsible was too great. I also considered whether there could be some kind of phased withdrawal. The problem was that, according to the advice that I received and according to my judgment, if we gave notice our own monitors might end up being subject to kidnap or siege inside the prison. I am in no doubt about that. For that reason—and although we made it absolutely clear in the letter that was sent to President Mahmoud Abbas, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, that unless there was any change the decision would have immediate effect—we could not give either the Palestinians or the Israelis advance notice.
	Did we alert the British Council? I cannot give the House the precise details, but I can say that British Council staff, who were all Palestinians, became aware of the possibility of demonstrations and that all those staff in both Ramallah and Gaza were withdrawn, so happily they are safe.
	Were we aware of the likelihood of the Israelis' seeking to take people into custody or seeking, effectively, to lay a siege around Jericho prison? Indeed we were, and that was part of what I had to consider. The House will recall the background—these detainees had been accused by the Israeli Government of complicity or involvement in the assassination of the Israeli Tourism Minister. The Israelis wished to arrest them, but they took refuge in the Muqata'a, President Arafat's compound. There was then a siege of President Arafat and those prisoners, the resolution of which was that the prisoners would be held in a Palestinian jail but with British and American monitors. The Israelis only agreed to that provided that we agreed to monitor the situation. It for that reason that we kept saying to the Palestinians, "Please improve security, ensure that the conditions of the Ramallah agreement are observed and ensure the security of our personnel."
	Who is responsible for the detainees? Legally, I believe it is the Palestinians but, so far as the Israelis are concerned, the detainees are prisoners at large under charge in Israel. That is the currently the subject of intensive diplomatic efforts with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Alan Duncan: On 16 February, I asked the Minister to explain the Government's policy for establishing onshore strategic energy stocks that stand a chance of lasting for more than a few days. The answer, in effect, was that we have very little storage and will not do so for some time. That largely explains why Britain is so acutely vulnerable to the sort of extreme price spike that we are facing today. British business lives in fear that its fuel costs will rocket to ever more punishing levels, and that it might even be cut off altogether. Yesterday the National Grid, for the first time under the new warning system, issued a gas balancing alert. If there is one positive point to be drawn from this situation, it is that at least we know that the warning system is working.
	For the next year at least, the UK will remain perilously sensitive to short-term gas price volatility. We have a free market in energy; the rest of Europe does not. Even when our prices are high, they still do not sell to us. This Government singularly failed to address this issue during their presidency of the European Union last year. Our gas production is falling, which is made worse by the Chancellor's tax regime, and during the winter we are now forced to import a growing percentage of our gas requirements. The gas comes mostly through only one pipeline, our shipped liquefied natural gas imports are not at the volumes we need, our storage capacity is puny and now our strategic vulnerability has been exacerbated by a cold snap across Europe, a fire at the Rough storage facility in the North sea, a drop in supplies from Norway and a strike by French gas workers. It is all happening at once.
	Yesterday the price of gas for immediate delivery shot up from about 60p per therm to a peak of 255p—an increase of 400 per cent. Today it is trading at about 225p to 250p for delivery within the next week or so, but for delivery in April the market is much lower at about 65p. This is the ultimate short-term market squeeze. To put it bluntly, is it not the case that there is simply nothing we can do in the immediate future, and that the excruciating exposure that Britain and its companies face will not be remedied for at least another year? Is it not the case that additional capacity to import by pipeline or ship and our capacity to store larger quantities will not come on-stream for another year? Is it not also the case that British companies that will have to endure another winter of impossible uncertainty and soaring fuel bills will not thank this Government for their culpable lack of foresight?

Don Foster: The test of the White Paper must be whether it guarantees a strong, independent and securely funded BBC equipped to meet the challenges of the digital age, strengthened in its independence from the Government and set to remain the envy of the world.
	Unlike the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), I think there is much in the White Paper to applaud: a clear statement of purposes to the BBC, emphasising quality, not ratings; increased opportunities for independent production; greater scrutiny of BBC finances under the NAO; continuation of the licence fee; and a charter lasting 10 years, ensuring long-term planning. That said, there are concerns on regulation, Government demands on the BBC and public service broadcasting in general.
	On regulation, does the Secretary of State accept that while the proposed BBC Trust is an improvement on the BBC governors, it is still not a totally independent regulator? It will have, as we see in the White Paper, strategic oversight of major BBC decisions, and the White Paper even describes it as the sovereign body within the BBC, so it is still part of the BBC. Does she agree that that will be especially problematic when deciding whether the BBC is allowed to develop an existing service or introduce a new one?
	The new proposals are certainly tougher than the current ones, and Ofcom's role—it is hardly a toothless tiger, I have to say—in assessing market impact is welcome, but will not the BBC still be its own judge and jury? Will the Secretary of State at least accept the need for a clear process of appeal to a truly independent authority? Better still, will she agree that a new single independent regulator for all public service broadcasters is the best option of all?
	On demands made on the BBC, is there not a danger that the BBC will be buried under innumerable Government targets? Is not the Secretary of State slightly embarrassed by the fact that the last charter and agreement had 43 clauses between them, whereas the new charter and agreement have 175—a fourfold increase?
	Given those demands, will the Secretary of State rule out a smash-and-grab raid on the licence fee payers to fund them? For example, does she agree that targeted assistance to help disadvantaged households in the switch to digital should be paid from general taxation, not the licence fee? Does she agree that the regeneration benefits, not the programme quality improvement benefits, of the move to Manchester should be paid for by Manchester authorities, not TV viewers nationwide? I agree with the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on one thing at least. If the Chancellor does introduce spectrum charging, will the Secretary of State rule out the possibility that the BBC will have to pay for it out of the licence fee?
	Will the Secretary of State re-examine the question of who pays the licence fee, and review the policy of concessions for vulnerable groups? Is it not bizarre that while hotels need only one licence for the first 15 rooms, there are no concessions for women's refuges?
	I hope the Secretary of State agrees that competition is good for the BBC. Will she make a firm commitment to preserving the plurality of public service broadcasting by, for example, protecting the future of Channel 4?
	Notwithstanding those concerns, there is much to be welcomed in the White Paper. For 80 years, the BBC has been the cornerstone of public service broadcasting in this country. Although they are not perfect, the proposals in the White Paper should ensure that as we enter the digital era the BBC will continue to play an important role in all our lives.

Alan Keen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on ensuring that the BBC maintains its uniqueness. In order to help it reach the 25 per cent. minimum of external production, may I suggest that she contact the BBC and say that we should have a parliamentary version of "The Office"? Would she support me in saying that there could be nobody better to write the script, and even play the main part, than the Shadow Secretary of State, based on his performance this afternoon?

Judy Mallaber: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a licensing regime for the sale or promotion of any service providing data on the location of children where these data have been derived from any mobile telephone network, satellite system or other electronic or communications medium.
	Only weeks ago, I knew nothing about electronic location services, but now I seem to hear about them everywhere I go and I am becoming paranoid about whether I am being tracked. I just saw an item on CNN about CeBIT, the world's largest annual high-tech trade fair, which opened in Hanover last week and at which more than 6,000 companies are showing off their latest wares for the IT and communications market. There was an item about the sector of the fair devoted to devices for tracking individuals—location services. One exhibitor said that he was amazed that more parents had not yet invested in his child location product—"Just pop it in your kid's backpack and get peace of mind." But what if it is someone else who pops that tracker into your kid's backpack—someone else who wants to trace your child? The exhibitor said nothing about how he checks whether he has sold his product to a parent or to a paedophile.
	That illustrates my main point: in the right hands, location data—knowing where someone is—can be valuable and reassuring, but in the wrong hands such data are extremely dangerous. My Bill will set up a licensing and regulatory regime to make sure that those services are in the right hands and that those who are being tracked know about it.
	I also have a broader point: for the first time in our history, we have it within our power—every one of us, not just James Bond types or the police—to track another person 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The mass consumer market is about to be flooded—is being flooded—with cheap, easy-to-use tracking devices; some are even being given away free. In addition to special tracking devices, there are services to track people through their mobile phones. Since the children's charities internet adviser told me of the new industry, I have learned of three journalists who in recent weeks have used such services to track people without their knowledge. The supposed safeguards to stop that happening did not work; they can be evaded all too easily. It is hard to believe but it is true: Members could all easily be being tracked now.
	Urgent debate is needed and controls must be established, not least because it is in the name of child protection that the new surveillance technologies are starting to reach the mass consumer market. Let us take the Teddyfone as an example. Launched last November, it is not hard to guess what the device looks like: its fetching blue and white livery will instantly appeal to the hungry eyes of at least the younger end of the 4 to 10-year-old market in which the company says it is interested. It will easily fit into tiny hands, pockets or backpacks. A Teddyfone does what any phone will do—it lets someone talk to the person who has it—but just sending a text message automatically and silently converts it into a listening device. As Teddyfone told a colleague of mine, if the child knew that someone was listening, it would defeat the point. The Teddyfone also provides information about the physical whereabouts of the person carrying the phone.
	All mobiles are now potential tracking devices. When any mobile phone is switched on, it is transmitting and receiving signals from individual, geographically specific radio cells on the owner's mobile phone network. The network knows where someone is, possibly to a matter of metres. If the phone has been turned off, has run out of power or is out of range of the network, the network knows where it was at that last connected moment.
	The emergency services have always been able to access that information, if necessary. However, the UK's mobile phone networks have now put that location information on sale to the public and, so far, about 30 companies, of which Teddyfone is one, are packaging and selling it. Some are doing so as part of so-called child safety products. In the case of Teddyfone, parents do not have to go to the trouble of speaking to their child; they just go to a website to see where he or she is, or ask for a map showing that information to be sent to their mobile phone.
	There are lots of other examples. The i-Kids phone even lets parents listen to their child's conversation, which is not a very good recipe for relationships with their teenager or for harmonious family life. That phone runs on satellite-based technology: the global positioning system. It is great to have satellite navigation in one's car to find a route, or so that one can be found by the emergency services in the event of an accident, but it is dangerous if, say, a violent man were to post a device to his estranged partner in a refuge with an anonymous post office box number in order to track her down, and that is very easy to do.
	Getting back to child protection, in theory the child must consent to his phone being tracked in the first place, but is there not something a bit odd about the idea of a four year-old, part of Teddyfone's target market, being able to give and maintain consent? An oppressive parent could insist on the child giving consent, or a devious paedophile skilled at grooming could easily find a way around the necessity, for example, by registering the second phone to himself before handing it to the child or hiding it in his backpack. To extend that to adults, The Guardian journalist Ben Goldacre showed recently that someone needs possession of another person's mobile phone for only a couple of minutes to appear to give the consent required under mobile phone companies' current procedures. The person he was tracking never got any of the warning messages that were meant to have been sent to her. Even more scarily, a hacker's website has recently published information telling how to spoof consent without even having to have temporary possession of the target's phone; all that is needed is the number. If someone has a person's number, he can track them. It is not a problem. I know where the website is, but I am not going to tell Members. It is possible to track people just through their phone numbers.
	There are other devices. Pupillo can listen and can watch as well, even in the dark. It was brought out recently and sees in the dark for anyone who has the number to dial. It may be ideal for a baby monitor, but what else will it be used for? That is a serious question.
	There are meant to be controls over location services. The Home Office, the police and children's charities negotiated with the UK's six largest networks and agreed a voluntary code of practice governing the deployment of child location services and location services generally. The code is meant to cover the identity of the person doing the tracking, his relationship with the person being tracked, getting consent and giving warnings, but in practice, as journalists have found, the voluntary code can only too easily be evaded—if it is applied in the first place or if people knew that it is meant to be applied. Furthermore, it does not apply to new tracking devices using the GPS system or new technologies that bypass mobile phone networks. They are being sold without any code of practice governing their deployment. That needs to be checked and followed up.
	Appeals to the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry to get involved have so far drawn a blank. In one case, the DTI gave financial assistance to a company that was developing a child tracking product. When asked whether it had considered possible criminal or other misuses of such technology, the DTI answered that such questions were not part of its business. Indeed, it gave the firm in question a prize for innovation. When DTI officials were asked whether they should have consulted child protection specialists, they said, "No".
	I hesitate before calling for yet another national debate, but someone somewhere needs to take responsibility for the situation before it gets out of hand. The DTI and the Home Office have done excellent work on other child protection and technology issues; now they need to tackle the problem I have set out. The internet was kicking around for 20 years or more without anyone taking much notice—it was just the plaything of a few boffins—but once it started to penetrate the mass market, we realised that it raised many social and political issues. It is a great force for good, but it also allows trade in child pornography, the movement of criminal funds and other dangers.
	Let us talk now about the implications of this latest surveillance technology for family life, children's safety and society as a whole. A child location service can give parents peace of mind, but what peace of mind will they have if such services remain unregulated and open to any stranger to misuse? That stranger may be one of those people who are so clever at grooming a child.
	The issue is not just about child protection. We are sleep-walking into a world where jealous partners or obsessed stalkers could spy on us simply by obtaining our phone number. We must act now before that new surveillance industry gets out of hand. We must establish controls and a licensing regime fast.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Judy Mallaber, Kali Mountford, Annette Brooke, Margaret Moran, Derek Wyatt, Mrs. Betty Williams, Paddy Tipping, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. Ian Taylor, Siobhain McDonagh, Roger Berry and Mary Creagh.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment (a) to new clause 8, in line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (6).
	Amendment (b) to new clause 8, in line 36, leave out subsection (8).
	Amendment (d) to new clause 8, in line 41, at end insert ', or'.
	Amendment (c) to new clause 8, in line 42, leave out from 'day' to end of line 43.
	Amendment (e) to new clause 8, in line 44, leave out subsections (10) to (13).
	Amendment (f) to new clause 8, in line 63, leave out from beginning to end of line 66.
	No. 4, in page 3, line 21 [Clause 5], after 'apply', insert—
	'(a) to the docking of the tail of a working gundog; or
	(b) '.
	Government amendment No. 38
	No. 5, in page 3, line 25 [Clause 5], at end insert—
	'(6) In subsection (4), "docking of the tail of a dog" means the deliberate removal of any part of a tail of a dog if the removal is carried out—
	(a) by a veterinary surgeon; and
	(b) on a dog which is less than 10 days old.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 39 to 60.

Ben Bradshaw: That was the point. The reason I am supporting the exemption is that I partly agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	If the House chooses not to vote for the new clause, that will leave it open, as I reaffirmed to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) a moment ago, to the Government to make regulations exempting tail-docking from the general ban on mutilations prescribed in clause 5. The Government would subsequently be able to alter the law without recourse to primary legislation. Despite the strength of feeling on all sides, the House may still detect some virtue in this flexibility.
	Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) would introduce an exemption for working dogs from the ban on mutilations. However, there are problems with the drafting. Amendment No. 5 seeks to define a term that does not appear in amendment No. 4. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's new clause is a more appropriate way to achieve a ban on docking, with a working dog exemption. I hope that on this basis he will withdraw his amendments.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing that that is the nub of the problem. If he is right and tail docking dies out—personally, as I said earlier, I do not favour the look of a docked tail—that is the how I would prefer things to proceed. Docking would die out because people did not want to do it, rather than because we legislated for that in the Bill.

Anne Snelgrove: As a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I want to thank the Minister for the way in which he conducted our debates, for taking the Committee's temperature and for allowing us a free vote.
	I want to begin by taking issue with what the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said about past debates on animal welfare in this House. The first animal welfare Bill was debated and passed in 1911, and it is the sign of a civilised society when it debates, without mawkish sentimentality, the welfare of animals, whether they are pets or working animals. It is right that Members in all parts of the House find this issue important.
	I will be supporting the Minister's amendments—even though he is unable to do so—mainly because of lobbying in my constituency. Stephen Smith, a local vet, wrote to me saying that tail docking
	"is a procedure I have never elected to perform, on welfare grounds . . . it is not in the animal's best interests . . . puppies feel pain during the process of docking . . . the use of the tail to communicate is essential to a dog's well being . . . There is no scientific evidence to show that undocked working dogs damage their tails any more than undocked non-working dogs . . . If exemptions are introduced into the law there will always be an opportunity for exploitation of a loophole and inevitably the law will fail to protect the animals that it is intended to protect."
	Those are overwhelming reasons why we should vote for a total ban, with no exemptions.
	Vets throughout the country are making the same arguments as Stephen, saying that docking is not in the dog's interest. That has put some doubt in my mind about the crucial test—whether tail docking is a good thing. Surely it cannot be, given that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association have all long believed the practice to be unethical. As a result, it is no longer taught to veterinary students as part of their studies.
	The docking of animals' tails is not wrong if there is a scientific case for doing so; indeed, there is a strong case for the prophylactic docking of some animals. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—I am afraid that some Members seem to have little respect for the RSPCA, but I have a great deal of respect for it—is not asking for a ban on the docking of lambs or piglets, subject, of course, to specific restrictions on the manner in which it is carried out. The National Farmers Union emphasises:
	"What may be appropriate provision for companion animals is not necessarily appropriate for animals kept for commercial purposes as in farming."
	No one would suggest that farmed animals should not be protected by docking. Reference was made earlier to a sheepdog soiling itself, and it was argued that it would be better for such animals to have their tails docked at birth. Members should be aware that according to the RSPCA, proper and careful grooming of dogs is a far better approach than cutting off the tail to avoid the area underneath becoming soiled with faecal matter. In some cases, hygiene problems are increased by docking, as the procedure can damage the anal muscles. Therefore, we cannot extrapolate from one species to another, and the evidence is that what is appropriate for livestock is not right for dogs.
	In considering whether to dock the tail of a puppy or to leave it, the moral dilemma will always to be weighing the potential pain from possible tail damage against the definite pain from what may turn out to be an unnecessary preventive measure. There is evidence of pain, but no evidence of benefit. I advanced this argument on Second Reading and in Committee, where I was pleased to table the amendment prohibiting docking, and I want to address it again. The House of Commons Library provided a journal article on the available research and, according to that, all the evidence reviewed thus far is consistent with the claim that docking causes acute pain to dogs. No evidence could be found to support the claim that new-born pups do not experience any pain at the time of docking. On the question of benefit, the article concludes:
	"The absence of appropriate studies in this area represents a significant difficulty for those who support tail docking, even in those breeds that may be expected to sustain tail damage."

Ben Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	This amendment to the Bill reflects my agreement in Committee to consider further a new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). His proposition was that those accused of an offence should be told in a statutory improvement notice how they were breaking the law and what they needed to do to avoid being taken to court. I have taken that on board and that is what the new clause achieves.
	Unlike the hon. Gentleman, however, we have not sought to replicate the approach taken in existing farm animal legislation, which makes it an offence not to comply with an improvement notice, but since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 may require an appeal process—a point that he acknowledges with his new clause 4. However, we believe that appeals are impractical because the period of an improvement notice is frequently short—for example, 24 hours—when dealing with the provision of water and feed. Appeals are also resource-intensive, as prosecutors may have to go to magistrates once for the appeal hearing and again for the prosecution, and the appeal process is easily abused by those who deliberately want to be obstructive and frustrate the inspectors.
	Under new clause 9, we propose instead that someone who complies with an improvement notice will not be prosecuted. That is more straightforward, does not raise questions about appeals and is a clear incentive to someone to comply. Only inspectors, as defined in clause 46, will be able to issue those notices. I do not consider it appropriate that those who are not publicly accountable should be able to issue notices with formal legal authority.
	We do not agree with the hon. Member for Leominster that an inspector should be obliged to issue a notice, although I note that he has proposed amendment (a) to new clause 9, which would do just that, but new clauses 3, 4, and 5, which he also tabled, would not do so. Compulsory notices would enable the serial offender to comply with each notice and then repeat the offence, safe in the knowledge that the worst that an inspector could do was issue another notice. In such circumstances, as in particularly serious cases that involve borderline cruelty, the inspector must be able to proceed directly to prosecution if he or she thinks that that is the best course, particularly if a disqualification order would be appropriate. In most cases, we would expect inspectors to issue a notice, but they should have the discretion to proceed directly to prosecution where that is warranted, particularly when private prosecutors are free to do so.
	Finally, new clause 9 relates only to alleged offences under clause 8—the welfare offence—but new clause 3 would also include the power to issue notices for alleged cruelty violations under clause 4. I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that for most offences where actual cruelty has occurred, inspectors ought to proceed straight to prosecution, rather than issuing notices. On that basis, I commend new clause 9 and urge the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment (a) or new clauses 3, 4 or 5 to a vote.

Bill Wiggin: I have fought for the inclusion of the improvement notice in the Bill, and I am pleased that the Government have wrestled with the very difficult task of proposing such an amendment. New clause 9 will serve as a statutory provision that represents an intermediate step before prosecution and will operate as an independent measure that will help to improve animal welfare standards.
	The principle of issuing warnings—or, in footballing terms, yellow cards—with a statutory requirement before pursuing prosecutions will not only save time and money, but help to focus resources elsewhere, on the most serious cruelty crimes. However, although I can see that the Minister's officials have done a good job in drafting the new clause, I am disappointed that it does not include a mandatory mechanism to ensure that suspected offenders are issued with an improvement notice before any prosecution can commence, and I have tabled a "one-word" amendment accordingly.
	The offences under clause 8, for which the improvement notice will apply, relate to the raft of codes of practice that the Minister plans to introduce under clause 12. Given that many owners may not have read a copy of the draft cat code and may not have read it carefully enough to know whether their cat happens to be too fat or too slim or is receiving sufficient mental stimulation, it is only right that we give them the opportunity to alter for the better the way that they care for their animals.
	The vast majority of animal owners would be prepared to do the right thing if they knew what it was. Of the 257 improvement notices issues in the RSPCA's eastern region, only 17 were ignored. Let us just think of the court time saved and how beneficial it would be to inspectors to be empowered in that sensible and practical way, which would improve animal welfare. It is those 17 people whom we are after. That is the path to cruelty, so they are the people whom we want to prosecute, and we want to do so in the spirit of the Bill, before their animals have suffered cruelty; we do not want to prosecute people who are willing to change.
	Furthermore, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which considered a draft version of the Animal Welfare Bill more than a year ago, recommended that provisions for improvement notices should be included in the Bill. So if we fail to amend the Bill to give law enforcers the power to issue improvement notices, we will open the floodgates to prosecution.
	The RSPCA has pointed out that some clarity on those notices would be helpful, and I am sure that there will be opportunities in another place to clarify how we deal with people who abuse this important merciful intervention. We can overcome the technical difficulties associated with people who hide behind the time frame, or who repeatedly fail for different reasons.
	We know that such orders work, so let us give them the full backing of Parliament by ensuring that they are issued on a mandatory basis before all prosecutions under clause 8(1). Amendment (a), which I tabled to new clause 9, would serve that purpose, as would new clauses 3, 4 and 5, which I also tabled. However, it was the Minister's wish that I should not press that amendment or those new clauses to a vote. I shall happily take his advice on the new clauses, but I intend to vote on amendment (a), which would make Government new clause 9 mandatory.

Andrew Turner: I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). Surely, the problem is not poor welfare tipping over into cruelty but poor practice tipping over into poor welfare. For example, many of us believe that keeping two Alsatians is contrary to the animals' best interests, but does that constitute treatment that justifies the serving of a notice under new clause 9?

Andrew Turner: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) say whether, at that end of the spectrum, it would be better for the inspector to have discretion as to whether to serve the notice?

Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend should be aware that the Bill does not apply to farm animals, which is perhaps why the Deputy Speaker called him to order.

Shona McIsaac: I have seen the amendment that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) has tabled to the early-day motion. Perhaps that is what he wants to ask me about.

James Paice: If the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) were to force a division on the amendment, there would be a free vote for my colleagues and myself. Speaking for myself, I am not quite sure where she thought she was getting to. Towards the end of her speech, she said that all she was seeking was some indication from the Minister as to what he was going to do. We all got that last week in the newspapers.
	I made it clear in Committee that I do not particularly like the idea of wild animals in circuses, but I think that the matter is better dealt with by regulation, as it is conceivable—barely, in my view—that it is possible to meet their welfare needs by some means. If a circus cannot meet the necessary codes of practice and regulations laid down by the Government to meet the welfare needs of the animals, so be it; it cannot keep them. If it can, whatever the expense and however grand or palatial the accommodation, that is all right.
	There is a risk that hon. Members are confusing the issue of the animal's welfare with the issue of whether or not it is right for an animal to perform for human entertainment. Those are two distinct debates—

James Paice: I am sorry, but with respect the hon. Lady has had a good crack of the whip. [Interruption.] They are not all asleep, Madam Deputy Speaker. Despite the hon. Lady's best efforts, they are still awake.
	There is a free vote on this issue and I certainly would prefer that it be dealt with by regulation, but as I said, my personal view is that it is not right to keep wild animals in a travelling circus.
	New clause 2, which was moved admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who reminded the House that he has already introduced a private Member's Bill on the selling of animals on the internet. He feels very strongly about this issue as, indeed, do I and other hon. Friends, which is why we have added our names to his new clause. I do not know what the Minister intends to say, but I point out that I and most of my colleagues strongly support my hon. Friend in his efforts.
	As we know, the internet has brought tremendous benefits to many, but it is also a means of dispersing information, products and goods that we perhaps do not want to be dispersed so easily. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) rightly intervened to point out that the Home Office has found a way of dealing with some aspects of paedophilia and child pornography on the internet, so it is only right that, if possible, the same methods be applied to the sale of animals. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin said, some species of animals are sensibly traded on the internet. The Farmers Guide website, for example, carries adverts for farm animals, which is perfectly logical, and one can look at them and then buy them. However, as he said, it is stretching the point when one can buy an animal such as a leopard, given that the seller does not know to whom they are selling the animal.
	Subject to the Minister's response, we may want to divide separately at a later stage on new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), which returns us to the issue of abandonment. We discussed it in Committee and the Minister was helpful, pointing out that the abandonment of an animal would be an offence under the Bill's cruelty or welfare provisions, which we wholly support. He made it clear that the act of abandoning an animal is still an offence under the Bill, but that no explicit provision has been made for it because the Government do not want to make the Bill any longer or more complex than is necessary. Of course, we have already done just that through earlier votes this evening, and I am not sure that such considerations should be the guiding factor in getting animal welfare provisions right, given that we seem to visit these issues only once every 100 years.
	Where somebody has abandoned an animal, it is uncertain whether that will trigger the cruelty offence or the welfare offence, which is why we still believe that abandonment should be treated as a separate offence. What could be more complex than not knowing whether the act of abandoning an animal constitutes a cruelty or a welfare offence? If we follow the Minister's argument to its logical conclusion, why did he need to include in the Bill separate offences of fighting, poisoning and mutilation, all of which could be covered under the cruelty or welfare provisions? In fact, he was right to include them as separate offences, and we believe that he should do the same with abandonment.
	If we follow the Minister's reasoning even further by having two abandonment offences—a cruelty offence and a welfare offence—and we apply the logic to the other offences dealt with independently in the Bill, his argument falls apart. For example, if the fighting offence was dealt with in the same way as abandonment, an owner whose animal is involved in a fight but escapes unharmed would be subject to prosecution and punishment under the welfare offence only. I doubt whether many in this House would find that acceptable. The Select Committee expressed the concern that such changes to the legislation would weaken the existing law on animal abandonment, under which a person found guilty of abandonment is deemed to have committed a cruelty offence. The Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 shows that abandonment was deemed to be so serious an offence as to warrant a separate Act, so I find it difficult to understand why the Government now believe that it does not even deserve its own section in the Bill. I might also point out that the animal welfare legislation before the Scottish Parliament will retain abandonment as an offence in its own right.
	Amendment No. 2 covers responsibility for a stolen animal. The issue was discussed in Committee, but we did not feel that the Minister really addressed the issue of who would be responsible for the welfare of a stolen animal. He said that
	"if someone were to take possession of an animal unlawfully, they would in most cases be considered to be responsible for it. They would, after all, almost certainly be 'in charge' of it on a temporary basis."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 January 2006; c. 28.]
	No one would disagree with that, but it contains two important caveats in the words "in most cases" and "almost certainly". In the cases not covered by "most cases", who would be considered to be in charge of the animal? I hope that the Minister has had a chance to reconsider the issue in some depth and decide who would be in charge of a stolen animal in such circumstances. It is, after all, conceivable that someone who has stolen an animal may treat it improperly and be liable to prosecution, but we need to know who that would be.
	Amendment No. 3 relates to mental and physical suffering. The Minister has recognised the point and will no doubt speak to his own amendment in a minute, but I welcome the Government's agreement to introduce that concept into the Bill.
	Amendment No. 107 was tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes. I understand and sympathise with his objectives, but the drafting of clause 4(3)(c)(ii) is broad on the protection of property. I am not sure that I would go as far as he wishes and narrow it solely to the police and armed forces, because we have a huge private security industry. However, I hope that the Minister will consider narrowing the scope of that provision in the other place.
	Amendment No. 17 covers similar ground to amendment No. 78. We welcome amendment No. 78 because the Government have basically accepted the arguments made in Committee. Clause 16 contains no requirement for an inspector or constable who acts without the approval of a veterinary surgeon to seek any further advice or to obtain confirmation that the right action was taken. Amendment No. 17 seeks to close that loophole and would guarantee that animals in distress would be treated according to expert advice. It would not remove the right or ability of an inspector or constable to act quickly, but it would ensure that they had to seek the advice and certificate of a veterinary surgeon as soon as practicable after the event.
	Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 cover substantial issues to do with offences and we may wish to divide the House on them as they fall to be considered. If an offence has not been committed or a person has not been criminally negligent, but they are no longer able to look after their animals, it would be right to take the animals away and give them a proper home where their needs could be met. Under clause 18 as drafted, it appears possible that someone could have their animal taken away from them even when they have not committed an offence or been unintentionally negligent. Amendment No. 18 would provide a resolution to that problem. It supports the principle of taking all steps possible to communicate with the owner of an animal to obtain their views on its future. That principle has been accepted by the Minister and is reflected in Government amendment No. 78, but we ask him to consider amendment No. 18 as well.
	The amendments also deal with an important matter that might place prosecutors in breach of the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to retain exhibits in connection with a prosecution. If a prosecution is mounted some time after a seizure, the animal that is the focus of the case may have been destroyed or disposed of. The Attorney-General's code of practice for investigators, which applies to anyone carrying out an investigation, sets out a duty to seize and retain all relevant exhibits that are the subject of an investigation for use in court, or for examination by the defence; failure to do so can result in the proceedings being dismissed.
	As drafted, clause 18 could allow the destruction or disposal of an exhibit before the person who is to become a defendant has the chance to have the exhibit examined by his own experts. At the time that such an application is made, he will not know that there is a need for such an examination and might not object to disposal. Without the change proposed in the amendment, we suspect that clause 18 may be challenged under articles 6 and 8 of the European convention on human rights.
	By inserting a new subsection, amendment No. 20 would provide that a financially constrained person who is unable to afford legal representation may have the benefit of a representation order.
	Amendment No. 21 is designed simply to reduce the excessive bureaucratic burden that we all seek to lift from small businesses. Under clause 28, persons can be prosecuted for offences dating back three years. We have pressed the Minister on why three years was chosen. Such a provision could well mean that businesses have to keep records for three years. There are some 10,000 pet shops, kennels, catteries and grooming salons in England and Wales, many of them micro-businesses with only one or two employees, and requiring them to keep all that extra information for three years would impose an immense burden of red tape. We have rehearsed the arguments before, but I hope that the Minister has now had a chance to consider the matter further.
	Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are important amendments that would introduce an element of common sense in the prosecution of offenders who are suspected of committing offences under the Bill. The three-year period in which prosecutions under the welfare offence can be pursued is, we believe, too long. It demonstrates a lack of lack of urgency and may throw up some practical problems. To take an extreme example, hamsters live for only two years, yet the Bill suggests that it might be possible to bring a prosecution three years after the offence. There are clear logistical problems. Clause 28 could require an animal—or, even worse, a dead animal—to be kept in custody for up to three years. We have raised the matter with the Minister, and rather than go through all the arguments again I shall merely express the hope that he will look favourably on our amendments.
	Amendment No. 24 would have the same effect on the time limit, reducing the time limit for prosecutions under the welfare offence to a more practical 12 months.
	Clause 29 provides what we consider to be unacceptably soft prison sentences for the worst crimes. When I raised the matter on Second Reading, the Secretary of State replied:
	"If the House feels that a change should be made, no doubt that can be considered."—[Official Report, 10 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 169.]
	I hope that her comments were sincere—I am sure that they were—because I believe that we need to reconsider the issue. The proposed maximum sentence is 51 weeks, which early release schemes could halve. We do not believe that such a maximum sentence will always be sufficient.
	We know that the Government are anxious to avoid the overcrowding that is now occurring in our prisons. They are encouraging the judiciary to reduce the period in custody and to use other forms of sentence. Again and again, we see sentencing policy being driven by the needs of the prison system rather than by the offence. We believe that to be wrong. It seems odd to have a situation where a pensioner refusing to pay his council tax could be imprisoned for longer than somebody guilty of an offence under this legislation. That is incorrect and the amendments address that issue.
	Amendment No. 26 ensures that anybody appointed by the court to deal with the disposal of an animal where the court has decided to deprive the owner of it is a veterinary surgeon or otherwise has the appropriate training and qualifications. It may be self-evident that that should be necessary, but it should be in the Bill. There are many amendments and new clauses in the group and they are all worth while. I hope that the Minister will respond to them constructively.

David Drew: The hour is getting late, so I shall be brief. I shall speak to new clause 10, which is tabled by my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), and make a couple of observations about other amendments in this group. I commend the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on persevering with his important proposal, of which I am proud to be a sponsor. I wish him well. It may not advance at this stage, but it should do so in another place. I hope that the Government are taking careful note and will do something about it.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) raised many issues, but he is on to something with abandonment. We discussed that subject at length in Committee. The Government need to be clearer about what they will do about people who neglect their animals. The only thing that worries me is what is meant by abandonment. If one tries to bear down on people, they can get rid of their responsibilities by dumping the animal somewhere else. That form of extreme abandonment needs to be dealt with and prevented.
	I am happy to put my name to new clause 10, but I wish to query a very helpful and responsive statement by my hon. Friend the Minister on 8 March. It might be called half a loaf: we did not get everything we wanted, but we got half of it. It is worth supporting. I hope that if and when the Minister is able to say a few things in response to my questions I will feel satisfied. People who have campaigned for a generation on this issue, whether Animal Defenders International or, more particularly, the Born Free Foundation, which feels passionately that it is wrong to have animals in circuses, certainly those that we used to call wild animals, will feel some vindication.
	The interchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who is no longer in the Chamber, was interesting. It clarified part of the problem, which is that if legislation lists what should be banned, those who wish to have rare species in their circuses can go for something even more exotic. The problem to which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight alluded needs to be thought about very carefully. We should state what we will allow—if, indeed, we allow anything—rather than what we will not allow. That is simpler, even though it is more restrictive.
	I largely welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister intends to clarify in secondary legislation what will be allowed, but I am somewhat concerned by the use in his statement of 8 March of the words "certain non- domesticated species". We would not expect a long list in a statement and we do not need one in this debate, but those words are fairly imprecise. I take it that the statement represents the Government's position, so once the principle has been established, it behoves my hon. Friend to clarify exactly which types of animal are inappropriate.
	The list does not need to be exclusive, but how will the process be developed? It is good to hear that secondary legislation will be used, but what is the time scale for that? What are the possible repercussions of secondary legislation? As we know, someone from the circus fraternity has already said that he will take drastic action if the measure comes to pass. Would such animals be put into sanctuaries, or will someone else take them on? They might go to a permanent circus or a zoo. Will my hon. Friend clarify those issues?
	My hon. Friend has given us half a loaf. Perhaps he could put some butter and jam on it, by giving us provisions that are long overdue. As Members on both sides of the House said, such a change is the essence of the Bill.

Norman Baker: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I assure him that I have not been given the chop, as he suggested earlier, but have resisted the temptation to carry on in my present post. I am merely withdrawing from it for the time being. I am happy to give him that reassurance and correct his statement.
	New clause 2 has much to commend it. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has highlighted an important issue which has not been properly dealt with in the Bill. More and more species—often endangered or exotic species—are being traded on the internet as pets, which is hardly a suitable medium to sell such animals. There is no guarantee that they will be properly looked after during transportation, or, if they are still alive when they arrive, that the people buying them will know anything about how to care for them. Of course, many of those animals are listed in CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species—and should not be traded at all. So this is an important issue.
	As I said in an intervention, the Home Office has done some good work on countering child pornography, so the systems are in place in the Home Office to deal with such matters, and I hope that they will be taken more seriously than they have been so far. As the hon. Member for The Wrekin is my brother's MP, I shall pass on the news that he is doing something useful in the House when I next speak to my brother.
	New clause 6, on abandoned animals, is also something for which I have considerable sympathy, and if it were pressed to a vote, my colleagues and I would support it.
	We heard a very long presentation about new clause 10, on circus animals, from the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and a long discussion of it, too, all of which was slightly academic because we heard from the Minister last week that he intended to take some action on the matter. I very much welcome the statement that he made last week. We need to get to the stage, with which many people are comfortable, whereby dogs, horses and certain other animals can carry on in circuses and animals with much more complex needs—lions and tigers, and so on—do not end up in circuses any more. That is where the centre of gravity lies in the House, and the Minister seems to be getting there, so let us allow him to do so.
	Incidentally, some of the animals shot by circus owners are doubtless endangered species, such as tigers, so I ask the Minister to investigate whether it is legal for circus owners to shoot endangered species if they no longer require them in their circuses.
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes referred to Ming. Ming has clearly had a very bad deal. Ming deserves full respect and support from hon. Members, and I am sure that that will happen if the Minister's actions are forthcoming. Ming needs to achieve full potential, and I am sure that that will be achieved if we end up with the Minister's proposals.
	I want to refer briefly to amendments Nos. 107, 108 and 109, which I tabled. I hope that, if the Minister has a chance, he will respond to them, because they deal with matters of concern. I particularly want to refer to amendment No. 107, to which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) also referred. As the Minister knows, I have supported the Bill throughout, as have my Liberal Democrat colleagues. The thrust of clause 4, on unnecessary suffering, is the right way forward, but he will be aware that it uses the word "property", which is of great concern to me, as it seems to provide the opportunity for a large loophole—a significant exemption from the provision on unnecessary suffering in that clause.
	When I raised the issue in Committee, the Minister mentioned that, for example, the police or the armed forces may need to use animals to defend property. I accepted that there might be occasions when it is necessary to use animals in those circumstances. However, in return, I asked the Minister to accept that, by including the word "property" without qualification, we could end up with the opportunity for a defence against the charge of causing unnecessary suffering being made to stick because property has been defended. The Minister has not qualified that word in any way, and I am very concerned that the use of the word "property" significantly weakens the clause on unnecessary suffering and provides a get-out for those who want to use that as an excuse. I tell the Minister quite seriously that he needs to do something about that, so I encourage him to respond to amendment No. 107 in particular, and I look forward to his comments on that matter. If he does not accept amendment No. 107, I hope that he will undertake to consider something similar in another place, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire suggested.
	Amendment No. 108 also picks up points, to which the Minister responded in Committee, about people receiving animals as prizes. He will remember our discussion about ponies being won at gymkhanas and so on. My amendment recognises that individuals win prizes in such circumstances, but it imposes a duty on entrants, requiring them to be prepared to meet the animal's needs if they are successful in the draw. That would allow ponies to be raffled, but it puts the onus on the person winning the prize.
	Finally, amendment No. 109 deals with a concern that I raised in Committee. The Minister will remember our discussions of the words "yard" and "garden". I expressed concern about the fact that there is a big difference between a yard in which an animal can be seen—people may have a genuine desire to intervene if they see that the animal is subject to unacceptable treatment—and a private area such as a garage. The Minister said that a yard could be enclosed, and asked whether we would like someone climbing over our back fence to deal with a problem.
	Amendment No. 109 deals with his objection by defining a yard more closely. It says that the provision would not apply
	"to a yard or garden where an animal is in the open and can clearly be seen from public land."
	That answers the point that the Minister made in Committee, so the example that he gave of an enclosed garden would no longer be a problem. The amendment is constructive and tries to meet his concerns while retaining my point about the area being seen from public land. If there is a vote on new clauses 2 and 6, or new clause 10, I shall recommend to my colleagues that we support those provisions. I shall be grateful if the Minister responded to amendment No. 107 when he has the opportunity.

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 30, line 9, at end insert— '"suffering" means physical or mental suffering and related expressions shall be construed accordingly;'.—[Mr. Bradshaw.]

David Taylor: My hon. Friend lists some of the unresolved matters, but as a fellow member of the Select Committee, does he agree by and large that the Bill is a shining example of what can be done with pre-legislative scrutiny in achieving a relatively uncontroversial Bill with the wide consensual support of the House? Does he agree that the Government should use pre-legislative scrutiny much more as the Bill is a classic example that working at its best?

Norman Baker: On grounds of accountability and democracy, I encourage the hon. Lady to make her comments in public in future—obviously, we could then all hear what was being said and we might even agree with it. The example set by the Bill is one that should be followed in future.
	It is a good Bill. It is not perfect, of course. There are issues with which we disagree—it would be extraordinary if we did not—and I hope that some of the issues to which the hon. Member for Stroud referred will be dealt with under secondary legislation. I understand the comments about Christmas trees, but we have taken on trust the Minister's assurance that measures will be introduced on a range of issues that people feel very strongly about—whether electric shock collars, greyhounds or the other issues that hon. Members have raised in the Chamber today and in Committee—and we want the Minister to deliver those assurances under secondary legislation and look forward to that happening.
	I draw to the Minister's attention to the fact that, under clause 63, there is a commitment to do nothing very much at all in implementing the Bill. We only have his word about that—I am happy to take his word, of course—but we want further action to ensure that this enabling Bill, which we will shortly pass on to the other place, is acted on using statutory instruments in due course.
	Of course, I am particularly pleased about clause 8, which introduces the RSPCA's five freedoms and is the cornerstone of the Bill in many ways. It is very important indeed and will go a long way to ensure that some of the awful examples of cruelty, which the RSPCA and others have drawn to hon. Members' attention over many years, will be curtailed and can be properly prosecuted by the appropriate authorities when they are detected, often earlier than has been hitherto possible.
	This is the first Animal Welfare Bill for 95 years. Of course, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 was introduced by a Liberal Government. Obviously, animals have had to wait for another Liberal Government, which has not happened since those days, unfortunately—so we have had to rely instead on a Labour Government to introduce another Bill to update that very important 1911 Act. I am pleased that the Government have done so. Animals will be better protected as a consequence of the Bill. I am also pleased that it has been possible to do so in a spirit of consensus and co-operation across all parties—something of which we can be proud.
	Lastly, I thank the Minister for his kind comments and assure him that it is my intention that my departure from the Front Bench will be temporary.

Peter Atkinson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The chain will be even longer than that, because it will run from the A68 to the A1. We could end up with a chain of turbines running right across some of the most beautiful landscapes in Northumberland.

Malcolm Wicks: As I said, that can sometimes make sense. Of course, it is also a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and we are trying to pursue that strategy when appropriate.
	We remain firmly committed to renewable energy. As the most advanced of the renewable technologies, wind power will continue to play an important role. As we consider our energy requirements and become a net importer of gas—we import 10 per cent. at the moment but 80 per cent. is projected to come from other countries by 2010—we need to have some answers about the source of energy. Some people need to talk about "yes", not "no". I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my pointing that out gently. The lateness of the hour probably means that I should not mention that Liberal Democrat spokespersons often urge me to accept that the answer is not nuclear or many other things but simply efficiency and renewables. The words, "wind farms" often pass their lips. If that is a principle, which many of us accept, we need to put it into practice from time to time. We cannot always take a "not in my backyard" position. I do not refer to the right hon. Gentleman's county, but I am trying gently to point to a dilemma as he urges us to reject wind turbines in his area.